http://www.nsa.edu/academics/distance.html Here's a religious school, a TRACS candidate, which feels its purpose and curricula prevents it from offering DL. The school believes the personal presence of the teacher is necessary for its goals to be fulfilled for the student. Hmmm..
And their religion is "lived out in the tiniest details of [their] lives." Now if that ain't arrogance, I don't know what is.
But this school for the BA requires four years of Latin and Greek and readings in such as Calvin's Institutes, Aquinas, Athanasius, Aristotle, Kant, sophocles, Hume, Hobbes, and further they do classical rhetoric and research methods. {go to academics} Be honest. Could such not best be done in a group which would occasion discussion and guidance? I wonder how many distance learning courses consist of about the following (I know experientially *some* do). Philosophy 6033: St Thomas Aquinas. Assignments: (1) read Summa, Questions 1-26. (2) complete 500 pages of collateral reading. (3) write a paper of 15 pages. Now compare that experience with reading a question or two and then discussing those for 90 minutes. Where will the learning happen? Could Aquinas be taught by DL? Perhaps, but not with the requisites above. One might do better by, eg, short written responses per question. (but then the instructor might have to work a bit more). How much expertise and effort is put into DL courses, and can it all be taught in this mode?
Arrogance? Should the Christian not strive to "live out" the principles of Christ in every detail of his/her life?
......................... Russell responds above to Unk's contention (not that Unk is ever contentious ) as Janko suggests that saying 'their religion is lived out in the tiniest details of their lives" might be arrogant. It seems two issues deserve clarification or comment. One concerns definition of the subject. What is meant by "their religion." For example in attending rhetoric class these must don specialized robes purchased from the school. What is the religious principle at work here..submission to authority? Also, it appears that the school treats egalitarianism---that the genders are equal in role in familial and ecclesiastical contexts-- -as a heresy. Of course many evangelicals are not hierarchicalistic (tho I somewhat am) and rather teach gender equality in roles. So what is "religion" here? Are the principles of Christ to be lived out these debatable hermeneutical findings which are of societal consequence (principally in 1 Cor 7,11;1 Tim 2,3 ) re male/female roles and manmade rules re dress codes..? Is being " led by the Spirit" being taught that egalitarianism is heresy and is a "fruit of the Spirit" wearing rhetorical robes? Of course the Christian should grow in grace, but what does that mean and how is it evidenced ? The second concerns a subtle but essential verbal difference. Unk's verb speaks of an unqualified fulfillment : "IS lived out.' Russell's "strive to live out" states the important goal is there but may not be perfect in its completion. The former may be arrogant were it taken to mean a perfect reaching of that objective. The latter perhaps is not arrogant because it suggests a working toward that perfection. Maybe I am arrogant for fussing with this school at all! Perhaps there is an application here to the pursuit of courses of religious instruction. Is the purpose of such learning to enforce religion or to teach about religion? Are professors God's police and the code of student conduct God's law? Does learning religion mean changing behavior? How much departure from a school's creed and code should be allowed to the student and who is ultimately responsible for a student's faith and practice? And how much and of what sort of learning, if any, is required before one lives out the tiniest details of his/her religion in life? If I get doctorates in Ministry or Theology should the respective schools verify my ethics as well as my education?
Vladika Russell: These folks wouldn't understand your Wesleyan/Pentecostal perfectionism if it walked up and bit them. What they appear to have is a "to hell or Connaught" approach that nothing but achieved perfection (grace? Grace who?) legitimizes any Christian educational endeavor.
I think it's just a little bit ironic that at least one New St. Andrews's professor and one recent graduate are faculty members at a DL secondary school: http://www.classicalfree.org/faculty.asp
under the address given in Charles' post see "staff application" and the positive reference to Jason Baker's DL site. really curious!
Bill, I hope I didn't confuse the issue. The link I posted is for the Classical Free Virtual Academy. The "WORLD'S ONLY REAL-TIME CLASSICAL CHRISTIAN ACADEMY," an online high school that I discovered while looking at Baker's Guide. CFVA appears to have a pretty impressive curriculum. I just think it's ironic (because CFVA is DL) that out of CFVA's 14 listed faculty members, 2 of them have a connection with (we don't do DL) New St. Andrew's College.
